Well, I would say that being a Sutra it means that it may have adopted some East Asian cultural accretions along the way. You see the Uposatha Sutta of the Pali Canon makes no mention of forms of sexuality but actually says:

3. "Bhikkhus. Ariyan disciples in this Religion reflect thus:

"'All arahants, for as long as life lasts, have given up that which is an obstacle to the Brahma-faring. Their practice is like that of a Brahma. They are far from sexual intercourse, which is a practice of lay people.'

"All of you have given up that which is an obstacle to the Brahma-faring and behave like a Brahma. Your behavior is far from sexual intercourse. For all of this day and night, in this manner, you will be known as having followed the arahants, and the Uposatha will have been observed by you. This is the third factor of the Uposatha.

A commentary to the observance of Uposatha precepts for assessing if one has broken the precept states:

The commentaries to the Brahmajala-sutta and the Kangkha-vitarani cite two factors for the third precept:sevanacittam — the intention to have sexual intercourse.maggena maggap-pati-padanam — sexual contact through any one of the 'paths' (i.e., genitals, anus or mouth).

Also when describing the groups (of people) with which sex is inpermissible we find:

This Sutta does indeed deal with the Uposatha sila (the Eight Precepts), but what about the third precept in the pañca sila (the Five Precepts)? How many and what are the factors of this precept?

There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara):agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women).tasmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups.sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse.maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort.

What are the twenty types of women?By group name they are:matu-rakkhita — A woman who is kept by her mother is called matu-rakkhita.pitu-rakkhita — A woman who is kept by her father is called pitu-rakkhita.mata-pitu-rakkhita — A woman who is kept by both her mother and father is called mata-pitu-rakkhita.bhatu-rakkhita — A woman who is kept by her older or younger brother is called bhatu-rakkhita.bhagini-rakkhita — A woman who is kept by her older or younger sister is called bhagini-rakkhita.nati-rakkhita — A woman who is kept by her relatives is called nati-rakkhita.gotta-rakkhita — A woman who is kept by her clansmen is called gotta-rakkhita.dhamma-rakkhita — A woman who is kept by people who practice Dhamma under the same teacher is called dhamma-rakkhita.sarakkha — A woman who is kept by her husband is called sarakkha.sapari-danda — A woman of such and such name and address, for misbehaving with whom a king levies a fine against a man, is called sapari-danda.dhanak-kita — A woman whose indentureship was bought by a man intending to make her his wife is called dhanak-kita.chanda-vasini — A woman who lives with a man of her own free will is called chanda-vasini.bhoga-vasini — A woman who becomes the wife of a man because of his wealth is called bhoga-vasini.pata-vasini — A destitute woman who becomes the wife of a man out of hope for things such as clothes is called pata- vasini.oda-patta-kini — A woman whom a man has asked for in marriage, during the solemnization of which the elders of the family take hold of the bride and groom's hands, plunge the hands into a tray of water and give the blessing, "May both of you love each other and live happily together; do not break apart, just as the water in this tray does not break apart," is called oda-patta-kini.obhata-cumbata — A woman who, being released from a heavy burden by a man, then becomes his wife is called obhata-cumbata.dasi ca bhariya ca — A slave woman whom a man marries is called dasi-bhariya.kamma-karini ca bhariya ca — A workwoman whom a man marries is called kamma-karini-bhariya.dhaja-hata — A woman whom a man wins in battle and then makes his wife is called dhaja-hata.muhut-tika — A woman living with a man for a certain period of time understanding that she is his wife is called muhut-tika.Any man who encroaches on any one of these twenty groups of women, along with the factors mentioned above, breaks the third precept, kamesu micchacara.

"'As long as they live, the arahants — abandoning uncelibacy — live a celibate life, aloof, refraining from the sexual act that is the villager's way. Today I too, for this day & night — abandoning uncelibacy — live a celibate life, aloof, refraining from the sexual act that is the villager's way. By means of this factor I emulate the arahants, and my Uposatha will be observed.

Right speech, explained in negative terms, means avoiding four types of harmful speech: lies (words spoken with the intent of misrepresenting the truth); divisive speech (spoken with the intent of creating rifts between people); harsh speech (spoken with the intent of hurting another person's feelings); and idle chatter (spoken with no purposeful intent at all).

In the above (simple) explanation as to what Right Speech is not, intention is key. In this and other threads it has been made crystal clear by various members that homophobic statements are unwelcome, inflammatory and in this day and age, inappropriate.

In conclusion those who repeatedly post homophobic (insert rascist, sexist etc etc) statements here at Dharma Wheel will be viewed by the management as having the intention to cause rifts between people (divisive speech) and hurting other people's feelings (harsh speech) and as such will be a cause for moderator action which may result in suspensions/bans.

Lhug-Pa wrote:Agreeing to disagree means respecting other's right to have their own views, even if you don't think that the other individual's views have any validity or integrity.

Everyone's entitled to their own thoughts. What I refuse to accept is that you have any right to make divisive, bigoted statements on a Buddhist forum, using Buddhism as your excuse.

Ditto.

And regarding respect, toleration, etc: the one kind of acts (inlcuding speech acts) that must not be tolerated in any truly tolerant, respect-based community are those which disfigure, cripple or do away with tolerance and mutual respect.

Lhug-Pa wrote:Yudron, I have done oral sex with women in the past; yet I refrain from doing it now.

Well, Lhugpa, at least you are consistent. This conservative sutrayana approach to the Dharma seems odd for a student of Namkhai Norbu.

The Sutra of the Upasaka Vow (Upasakashila Sutra)

The Mahayana sutra of the upasaka vows that is available to us in English is from the Chinese canon. I’ve heard some version exists in the Tibetan canon, but I have not been able to locate it. I’ve never heard of Tibetan lay people being instructed according to that text.

For those who haven’t read it, it is available on-line in English.

You will note the sutra is very detailed. In order to be qualified to take refuge and up to five vows, among other stipulations:

You can never visit a butcher or a tavern; sing, dance or play music, and you must stay away from: (1) gamblers; (2) alcoholics: (3) deceivers; (4) alcohol venders.

One would could not pay taxes because one quarter of one’s wealth would be used to provide for oneself and one’s parents, wife, and retinue; one half for lawful business; and one quarter saved.

After agreeing to the many stipulations, you would have to stay for six months and serve a wise man who has renounced family life (and evaluates one’s conduct.)

After that one can take refuge… but look out, you need an assembly of 20 monks to do so.

The vows all presume you are male. And so on.

This text is clearly interpreted for the modern era, and for women, by the preceptor… otherwise no lay person in the United States, would be an authentic vow holder according to the criteria of this sutra.

Tibetan Tradition

What I have seen in the Nyingma and Kagyu tradition as it is practiced here, is a lama, monk or nun, gives a brief introduction about refuge and may or may not offer the precepts (of course one takes the first precept against killing implicitly in taking refuge). Then, if the five upasaka vows are given, a little explanation is given about each one, then one can take up to five if they wish. The kind lama explains the vows to the student in a pithy relevant way. The point of all five vows is to not harm any sentient being, and the sexual misconduct vow for lay people is interpreted in this light. One proceeds based on one’s understanding from one’s preceptor. This is sometimes different in the more conservative monastic, and academic settings of the Sakya and Gelugpa schools, as we can see from Gyalwa Rinpoche’s approach.

The Vajrayana samayas, if one takes empowerment, are numerous and diligent and sincere practitioners break them frequently. Hence, we participate in tsog or confession practices frequently.

In traditional Vajrayana, the dzogrim (completion stage) belongs to people who have completed the preliminary practices of their lineage, and the approach and accomplishment of the deity--traditionally in a formal retreat with closed boundaries. The order of the subsequent practice—traditionally undertaken in long term retreat--depends on the texts of one's tradition, one's lama's knowledge and guidance, and one's own capacity, including age and physical ability. People who have not mastered these practices, and not been authorized to teach by their own lama are not qualified to speak of them, and everything they state as fact should be assumed to be incorrect.

Tara: In conclusion those who repeatedly post homophobic (insert rascist, sexist etc etc) statements here at Dharma Wheel will be viewed by the management as having the intention to cause rifts between people (divisive speech) and hurting other people's feelings (harsh speech) and as such will be a cause for moderator action which may result in suspensions/bans.

Now there is a worthy cause - harmony based on speech codes & exclusion. Tolerance, as Buddha taught, is being chopped into pieces, yet remaining equal-minded.

Yet here the popular, pedestrian PC is asserting its right & power to not tolerate certain words on a screen, based on the Dharma.

Tara: In conclusion those who repeatedly post homophobic (insert rascist, sexist etc etc) statements here at Dharma Wheel will be viewed by the management as having the intention to cause rifts between people (divisive speech) and hurting other people's feelings (harsh speech) and as such will be a cause for moderator action which may result in suspensions/bans.

Now there is a worthy cause - harmony based on speech codes & exclusion. Tolerance, as Buddha taught, is being chopped into pieces, yet remaining equal-minded.

Yet here the popular, pedestrian PC is asserting its right & power to not tolerate certain words on a screen, based on the Dharma.

Disgusting

Yes, we are seeking harmony by discouraging hateful speech. This is tolerance, as the Buddha taught: insisting on speech that is true, that is appropriate to the moment, that is helpful, while equal-mindedly chopping away divisive and false claims.

This is not about words on a screen, or some "PC" strawman that you insist on constructing. This is about respectful and honest discourse, out of respect for Dharma and those who practice it.

Disgusting? How so?

Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

We have to agree that most religions including buddhism point towards disinterest in the body which is a way 'forward' on the spiritual path. We can surmise that not fueling desire is a common thread. With the internet packed to the rafters with porn, consumerism... it's an uphill battle for all but a few that are ripe and ready for the buddhas teaching. One can repeat it again and again the teaching 'is only for those with a little dust in their eyes.'

The Pali Canon is some 40 volumes long, roughly about 20,000 pages and not a mention of homosexuality being prohibited for lay people. Celibacy is required of monks and nuns, so the list of inappropriate partners for them is everyone. For lay people we find:

Five types of sexual relations which involve sexual misconduct:

1. Anyone under the guardianship of their parents, i.e. under-aged2. Protected by Dhamma, monks, nuns or those who have taken a vow of celibacy3. Anyone married to someone else, i.e. adultery4. Anyone undergoing punishment, i.e. prisoners5. Anyone who is engaged to be married to someone else

Anguttara Nikaya V. 264

If it is supposed to be prohibited, you would think it would be mentioned somewhere within the 40 volumes and 20,000 pages, yet it is not. And yes, the Buddha knew of homosexuality and prohibited it (as well as heterosexuality) for the monks and nuns since they were celibate.

Note that the main point of the above is to only have sexual relations when the time is right and where there is honesty. There is no rule against sexual relations between same sex couples and also no rule against singles if they are mature and independent.

Tara: In conclusion those who repeatedly post homophobic (insert rascist, sexist etc etc) statements here at Dharma Wheel will be viewed by the management as having the intention to cause rifts between people (divisive speech) and hurting other people's feelings (harsh speech) and as such will be a cause for moderator action which may result in suspensions/bans.

Now there is a worthy cause - harmony based on speech codes & exclusion. Tolerance, as Buddha taught, is being chopped into pieces, yet remaining equal-minded.

Yet here the popular, pedestrian PC is asserting its right & power to not tolerate certain words on a screen, based on the Dharma.

Disgusting

Now let me see if I understand what you are saying: are you saying that speech based on hate and fear, on creating divisions, on condemnation of biological characteristics, etc... is right speech? I think you are confusing the Buddha with some pseudo-liberal neo-conservative that tries to use the idea of freedom of speech in order to justify using speech to sow discord and dissension.

You are also confounding the idea of freedom of speech with right speech. Freedom of speech was legally framed as an international right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, right speech was taught by the Buddha 500BCA

It's not a matter of being PC, it is a matter of having a little more sensitivity towards other people than the sensitivity a bull expresses for a red rag.

I don't think we should even talk about tolerance regarding homosexuality. It's a non issue. There's nothing to tolerate. Although it is not a normative sexual behavior, in part gladly or must of us wouldn't have born , it has nothing to do with moral. It's not a matter of moral loving or feeling sexual desire for the same gender. Or at least it doesn't have more to do with it than sex in general. It's more a matter of biology/ psychology than anything else.

Things are quite explicit when it comes to unwholesome behavior: cause no harm (sometimes the tough part comes when we need to find out what really causes harm and what doesn't). So if one's sexual conduct is harmful, one should abstain from such behaviors, not mattering one's sexual orientation.This doesn't mean that we can alter what is considered sexual misconduct though. It seems that using the wrong orifice has repercussions on the circulation of the prana. This applies to anyone doing it, not just gays. In case of male homosexuals, things may get a little tricky as they don't have as many options. So it's up to them to balance the pros and cons and then decide what to do. One can wonder what would be more problematic: having one's prana circulation a bit disordered for a while and correcting it with adequate exercises or being celibate (at least abstaining from anal/oral sex), with the consequences that may come for a lay person not psychologically prone to celibacy. It's an individual matter. So if there's a negative effect, there's a negative effect and there's no point in denying it to fit our ideas. But many of our behaviors have negative effects and we still aren't free from them. These things take time.

Unwholesome behavior has many, many facets. I'd say that gays don't particularly have more problems that the rest of the folks on the path, unless they fall for the whole "gay identity thing", which is not always the case. I met a lot of gay people in my life, some are close friends. If some are completely obsessed by their sexual predilection and their life revolves about this particular issue, others are just common folk who happen to feel sexually attracted by people of the same gender. If the first will probably have a lot of stuff to deal with, actual sexual practice probably being the less problematic, the second won't face more challenges than most people.

I really think this thread is a little silly. It's only tangential to Dharma, at least the bulk of it, is only connected with the circulation of the prana and it is not a matter of moral. At least not in most parts of the world. And where it still is a matter of moral, it shouldn't be. The subject can be deepened, obviously, because being gay has many implications, but when it comes to Dharma, there's really not much to say, or so I think.

Gay people interested in Dharma do very well to practice it. As anyone else. I d' say that pretty much covers all that should be said.

If a certain speech makes your blood boil that doesn't necessarily give you the right to call it hate speech. I tend not to ignore statements, for example, made by this indiviual:

Too many people in the West have given up on marriage. They don't understand that it is about developing a mutual admiration of someone, a deep respect and trust and awareness of another human's needs. The new easy-come, easy-go relationships give us more freedom - but less contentment.

I don't think people have become more selfish, but their lives have become easier and that has spoilt them. They have less resilience, they expect more, they constantly compare themselves to others and they have too much choice - which brings no real freedom.

A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife - astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong.

A Western friend asked me what harm could there be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it. But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don't create life. I don't mind - but I can't condone this way of life.

The Dalai Lama

It’s part of what we Buddhists call bad sexual conduct. Sexual organs were created for reproduction between the male element and the female element – and everything that deviates from that is not acceptable from a Buddhist point of view.

The Dalai Lama

It should hardly be news to anybody that this is the view according to the tradition.

But neither do I ignore this individual's speech:

Do not believe in what you have heard; do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations; do not believe anything because it is rumored and spoken of by many; do not believe merely because the written statement of some old sage is produced; do not believe in conjectures; do not believe merely in the authority of your teachers and elders. After observation and analysis, when it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:It’s part of what we Buddhists call bad sexual conduct. Sexual organs were created for reproduction between the male element and the female element – and everything that deviates from that is not acceptable from a Buddhist point of view.

The Dalai Lama

Slightly off-topic but I'm genuinely interested: 'Sexual organs were created...' Created, in the context of Dharma, by what or by whom?

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:It’s part of what we Buddhists call bad sexual conduct. Sexual organs were created for reproduction between the male element and the female element – and everything that deviates from that is not acceptable from a Buddhist point of view.

The Dalai Lama

Slightly off-topic but I'm genuinely interested: 'Sexual organs were created...' Created, in the context of Dharma, by what or by whom?

I agree, it's a strange quote. Here we have a karmic body, from the point of view of the Mahayana it is just the residue of habitual tendencies, like an animal's body (while at the same time having tathagathagarbha.) On what basis would one say that two certain parts of the human have a sole purpose, and that one cannot deviate from that purpose? I don't know of anything in Dharma that makes conceiving a human baby more holy for practitioners than any other human function. If this is so, then why would we have monastics?

And if a penis is an insemination device, then why is it okay to urinate through it?

One could say that a human ear has the sole purpose of hearing. Is it wrong, then, to use it as a resting place for glasses?

I think that from many of HIs Holiness' comments about homosexuality it is the most inflammatory that were posted, I am not sure as to why. Because His Holiness' views are evolving, and he has stated publicly he is coming to terms with the phenomenon of modern homosexuality, which was not widespread in Tibet.(Please not I am not arguing that there was no homosexual behaviour there, we know this is not the case. I am more speaking about the modern concept of identifying as gay or lesbian).

His Holiness has made many many kind and compassionate remarks about this issue. Why don't we also post those?

Wikipedia:In his discussions of the traditional Buddhist view on appropriate sexual behavior, he explains the concept of "right organ in the right object at the right time," which historically has been interpreted as indicating that oral, manual and anal sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) are not appropriate in Buddhism or for Buddhists, yet he also says that in modern times all common, consensual sexual practices that do not cause harm to others are ethically acceptable and that society should not discriminate against gays and lesbians and should accept and respect them from a secular point of view.[73] In a 1994 interview with OUT Magazine, the Dalai Lama clarified his personal opinion on the matter by saying, "If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?'. If you both agree, then I think I would say, 'If two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay.'"[74]

In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,I must obtain control over my own mind. Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.-Atisha Dipamkarabrtsal ba'i bkhra drin

Here's one from 2008. Quotes without context are deceptive. People should be aware those on the internet often have a wish to malign HHDL, merely because he is so loved.

The Dalai Lama welcomed participants in the World Conference of the International Lesbian and Gay Association, and issued a message of support, expressing concern "reports of violence and discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people" and urging "respect, tolerance and the full recognition of human rights for all." http://www.wmtc.ca/2008/04/is-dalai-lam ... betan.html

To me HH's position is pretty clear as I have heard it. He is against discrimmination but feels that he cannot unilaterally change the ancient Mahayana commentaries (in this case by Vasubhandu I think) without a broader consultation with the Buddhist community.

In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,I must obtain control over my own mind. Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.-Atisha Dipamkarabrtsal ba'i bkhra drin

Because he said them. Here again we have a strange assumption as to whether by uttering them he was being "inflammatory" or as to why my posting them was "inflammatory". I presume those assumptions are based on postmodern cultural points of view. It seems however that there may be more than one point of view. No-one is arguing that compassion should not be expressed towards all sentient beings. The point I was trying to make is that we certainly should all be careful in our speech - including labeling something as "hate speech" or "inflammatory". That particular reflex seems to have become particularly tiresome here in the West, particularly when encountering a point of view that you disagree with. I also notice that no-one has seen fit to argue the particular substance of this issue here. As has been made clear, delving that deeply into this topic would appear to be forbidden.

JKhedrup wrote: To me HH's position is pretty clear as I have heard it. He is against discrimmination but feels that he cannot unilaterally change the ancient Mahayana commentaries (in this case by Vasubhandu I think) without a broader consultation with the Buddhist community.

That's precisely why I drew a parallel between HHDL and Rowan Williams.